build_finalize_resolution_transaction

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the burden but only discloses a prerequisite (BAOZI_LIVE=1) and a timing condition. It does not mention potential errors, side effects, or authorization requirements beyond what the schema hints at, leaving room for more transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with a clear prerequisite notation, delivering the essential message without waste. It is optimally concise and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter transaction builder with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for usage. It lacks explicit differentiation from the race-market variant, but the naming and the 'after dispute window' qualifier sufficiently guide the agent in most cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (market public key and caller wallet, with the note that anyone can finalize). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: building a transaction to finalize a resolution after the dispute window. The verb 'build' and resource 'finalize resolution' are specific and distinct from siblings like propose or resolve.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description indicates the timing context ('after dispute window') and requires an environment flag (BAOZI_LIVE=1), implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.